Search This Blog

Wednesday, May 23, 2012

Another great article from my friend, Fr. Tom Collins.

OBFUSCATION OF THE NEW EVANGELIZATION

If the bugle gives an
indistinct sound, who will get ready for battle? I Cor
14:8

A few weeks ago,
an elderly man who had lapsed from the practice of the Catholic Faith,
summarized his reason for leaving by saying, “Father,
let me know when the Catholic bishops finally decide what the Church really
teaches”. He had earlier expressed dismay at how quickly Church leaders sought
to appease dissidents and
how slowly they sought to please God. He gave the example of how quickly the
USCCB was willing to change the words of institution from “for all men” to “for
all”, in order to appease radical feminists. In contrast, it took over four
decades for them to concede that pro multis means “for many”, not “for
all”. He went on to point out that The Roman Catechism specifically
addressed this issue over four hundred years ago. Yet the Vatican chose to
ignore this clearly delineated teaching in order to approve liturgical texts
that tended to prioritize relevance over Revelation.

The man also
pointed out his consternation over the current HHS-USCCB controversy.

The
bishops cannot even agree among themselves that it is sacrilegious to abuse the
Eucharistic Christ in order to give spiritual encouragement and consolation to those who pro-actively
pursue policies promoting the brutal murder of pre-born children. Yet they are
afraid of desecrating their insurance dollars to help pay for the allegedly
divinely sanctioned practices of contraception, abortion and infanticide. If our
liturgical praxis affirms that Christ is giving a smiling “thumbs up” to these practices, why
should we make a fuss about our dollars supporting those same practices?

The gentleman
had several other major points of concern. But the pettifoggery of subtle
theological distinctions was inadequate for dispelling the fog of consternation
that enveloped his soul. In the end, he could only sadly conclude that the
Church militant had incrementally become the Church milquetoast, and that its
hierarchy had, by the same gradual process, embraced theological, liturgical and
pastoral policies, which curbed the fervor of fidelity for the sake of catering
to the demands of secular expediency.

This man’s
honest assessment of the current condition of the Church brought me up short. It
especially led me to look more carefully at what is the true meaning of the New
Evangelization. Specifically, it led me to think back to the idea of Newspeak in
George Orwell’s prophetic book, 1984. By the technique of Newspeak, the
government, Big Brother, sought to expunge the language of the sacred from
society’s language and thought processes. So it is that the forces of secularism
have gradually seduced many, even among our Church leaders, to forsake the
Gospel of the Cross of Christ for the sake of the new gospel of expediency and
capitulation to the demands of comfort, convenience and complacency. In order to
oppose this new gospel, Blessed John Paul II, accentuated in the Third Luminous
Mystery, the fact that the proclamation of the Gospel necessarily included
the call to repentance –
and not merely a repentance based on sad feelings, but one based on the
integrity of the whole truth of God and on sincere contrition for having
offended Him so grievously.

Evangelization
is impossible without repentance. And one area of the Church’s life, which is
seriously in need of repentance, is the tendency to uncritically embrace the
secular premises and language of the Culture of Death in order to convey the
sacred truths of our Catholic Faith. Over the years, the Newspeak imposed by the
unholy trinity of
secularism, relativism and hedonism has systematically desecrated our language.
For example, there has been a strong tendency to affirm that the truth of God
cannot be incarnate in specific teachings and disciplines, but only indicated.
Thus the proclamation of both the centrality and the necessity of God Incarnate,
Jesus Christ, for our salvation has been downplayed. Instead of proclaiming
Christ Jesus as Savior and Lord of all, we have been urged merely to propose
that people seriously evaluate certain “Gospel principles”. And even these
principles have been degraded by avoiding references to objective virtues, to
which we all are to be held accountable. Instead, we have tended to accentuate
“shared values”, which are carefully nuanced to appease the demands of political
correctness and perverse lifestyles.

The Newspeak
also has degraded our ability to appreciate the core dynamic of salvation. I was
shocked when even the
pope seemed to uncritically affirm the agenda of evolution, by affirming that
evolution was more than a theory. Whereas the Church has consistently taught
that all of us, both personally and communally, are called by God to share in His life through Jesus
Christ, the current tendency is for Church leaders to affirm that the
process of human
development is not guided by evocation, but rather by evolution. Yet, if God is
love, and salvation
necessarily involves participation in both the mystery and the ministries of
divine intimacy, how is it that we can teach that we evolve into salvation? True
intimacy can only exist when there is an invitation, or call, by the
beloved, whose whole being is open to communion. People do not evolve into
conjugal intimacy. Yet
it seems that we are becoming increasingly addicted to using the Newspeak of
evolution and self-fulfillment to explain some of the most profound and sacred
mysteries of our Faith. Although it is possible to survive by entering into
relationships that are merely symbiotic or parasitic, the integrity and joy of
authentic humanity can only be realized by accepting the invitation to share in
the mystery and the ministry of covenantal love.

In addition, the
theory of evolution tends to deny objective morality. Since survival, rather
than integrity, is the central guiding principle of evolution, morality can be,
at best, a useful tool. But it cannot be a foundational principle for human
development. Thus, in endorsing evolution as a valid scientific principle for
human development, Church leaders must necessarily acquiesce to the legitimacy
of moral relativism and situation ethics. Since evolution insists that survival, rather
than integrity of life, is core standard for making ethical decisions, a whole
host of sins have become sanctified by our secular society – only in certain
circumstances, of course. In
this mindset, even violations of civil and criminal law are not viewed as
objectively wrong – just so long as one is careful enough not to be caught or,
minimally, to maintain plausible deniability. Thus it is that any evangelization
poisoned by the premises of evolution can ultimately only bear the fruits of
perversion and promiscuity.

Another example
of the perverting influence of Newspeak is the tendency of many Church leaders
to present the magisterial teachings of the Church as “the official teaching of
the Church”. Sad to say, even the poorly educated know that “official teachings”
come from bureaucracies. But authentic teachings come from the Holy Spirit of
God. Why then do we continue to degrade the authoritative teachings of the
Church in a way that leads people to view these teachings as authoritarian? The
fruit of this capitulation to the secular view of Church leaders as merely a
stagnating bureaucracy clinging to archaic ideas and rigid rituals is
increasingly obvious.

As Church
statements forsake sacred language in order to cater to relativism, and as
Church praxis continues to capitulate to demands that she become adept at
adapting to and adopting the premises and practices of secular society, what else could we expect?
Is it any wonder that officials at HHS thought they were merely
(and perhaps even
“prophetically”) helping Church leaders to evolve in their understanding of the
deeper meaning of social justice? As indicated above, if survival, rather than
integrity, is the basic principle of life, is it not the loving
thing to help the Church to survive? After all, in order to appease addictions
to comfort, convenience and complacency, Church leaders have already de
facto eliminated the Eucharistic fast, turned Lenten discipline into an optional practice,
downgraded holy days of obligation and even moved Ascension Thursday to Sunday.
And the Vatican itself pulled the reins on Cardinal O’Boyle in 1968, when he
took steps to stop
theologians, who were dissenting against the authentic teachings on conjugal
love proclaimed in the encyclical, Humanae Vitae.

As I stated
above, all the above points out the need for the New Evangelization to be
preceded by a very careful and discerning examination of conscience by all in
the Church. And this examination must go below the surface and discern where we
have been seduced into accepting the perverted vocabulary, language,
perspectives and premises of the Culture of Death. Then, through the
graciousness of God, sincere and humble repentance will open the door to Christ.
Only then, will we be able to witness anew, with Our Most Blessed Mother, how
God, Who is mighty, is doing great things for us and through us.

Facebook Badge

Visitors since October 2008

Policy on Comments

Comments are moderated. Please be respectful. Argument (in the classical sense) is welcome, however crude, or obscene remarks will not be posted. I am more lenient with ad hominem attacks directed at me (no name-calling) since so many people these days don't seem to know how to engage in a discussion without them.